1. This is a "first-stage" proposal
laid before Parliament on 14 October 2003. A Statement by the
Department of Trade and Industry ("the Department")
was laid with the proposal ("the Statement") under section
6(1) of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 ("the 2001 Act").
The order consists of two proposals.

Proposal 1

2. The first proposal is to amend the Sunday
Trading Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act") so as (a) to remove
the requirement for large shops[2]
to give 14 days notice of their Sunday opening hours or any change
in their opening hours to the local authority, and (b) to remove
the requirement on local authorities to maintain a register of
notifications and to make the register available for inspection
by members of the public. The proposal does not change the number
or range of hours within which a large shop is permitted to open
on a Sunday (six continuous hours between 10am and 6pm).

Proposal 2

3. The second proposal is to repeal section 26
of the Revenue Act 1889 ("the 1889 Act") so as to remove
the prohibition on the sale of methylated spirits between 10pm
on a Saturday and 8am the following Monday. The Department, at
paragraph 20 of the Statement, describes the provision at "an
out-of-date piece of legislation" under which, as far as
they know, no prosecutions have been brought in recent years.
Indeed, the Regulatory Impact Assessment, at Annex D to the Statement,
suggests that many retailers appear to be unaware of the provision.

REMOVALOF
BURDENS

Proposal 1

4. The first proposal purports to remove two
burdens: the burden on large shops to notify the local authority
about Sunday opening hours, and the burden on the local authority
to maintain a register of such notifications (see paragraphs 28
and 29 of the Statement). It is estimated in the Regulatory Impact
Assessment of the proposal (see paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex C
to the Statement) that the administrative cost of handling each
notification is about £10 to £12.50 for both the businesses
and the local authorities. Each local authority, of which there
are about 300 in England and Wales, handles about 10 notifications
each year, making the saving to both businesses and local authorities
about £30,000 to £37,500 (a total of £60,000 to
£75,000) annually.

Proposal 2

5. The second proposal purports to remove the
burden arising from the restriction on the sale of methylated
spirits. The restriction affects both the shops which sell methylated
spirits and consumers who wish to buy methylated spirits (see
paragraphs 29 and 31 of the Statement). The Department suggests
(at paragraph 21 of the Statement for example) that because the
prohibition is often breached by retailers, either deliberately
or because they are unaware of it, the proposal would help traders
who are at a competitive disadvantage because they act within
the law.

6. The Committee accepts, with regard to both
proposals, that the provisions to be repealed impose burdens within
the meaning of the 2001 Act and that the effect of the proposals
is to remove these burdens. We observe in passing, however, in
agreement with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's response to
the consultation, that enabling business to achieve "a level
playing field" with businesses which operate unlawfully is
not, in itself, a persuasive reason for the proposal.

NECESSARY
PROTECTION

Proposal 1

7. This is dealt with in paragraphs 34 to 36
of the Statement. The Department suggests that the first proposal
would "produce a theoretical disadvantage for consumers"
in that they would no longer have the right to inspect the notification
register held by the local authorities. The Department argues,
however, that since (a) the evidence indicates that the register
is rarely or ever consulted and (b) other enforcement requirements
will remain in place (such as the requirement that large shops
should continue to display their Sunday opening times), no protection
is afforded by the notification procedure and therefore no necessary
protection is lost as a result of its abolition.

8. One consultee, Blackpool Borough Council,
suggested that the proposal would reduce the protection of shop
workers because the removal of the notification requirement would
enable large shops to change their Sunday opening hours at short
notice. In reply, the Department argued that the tendency for
this to happen would be off-set by the need for the shops to ensure
that they have adequate staffing and to ensure that customers
had advance notice of the shop's Sunday opening hours. They concluded
that the impact of the proposal on consistency of working hours
was likely to be "minimal". We noted, however, in contrast
to this reply, that the Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment
(Annex C to the Statement at paragraph 8) suggested that the first
proposal would "allow large shops to adjust their opening
hours at much shorter notice than currently because they will
not have to give two weeks advance notice of changes in planned
opening hours. This may be of benefit to businesses and consumers".

9. In a letter dated 7 November, we invited the
Department to explain this matter more fully and to state whether
the proposal would cause any loss of necessary protection to shop
workers working in large shops (see Annex 1). The Department,
in their reply (see Annex 1 also), suggested that the abolition
of the notification requirement would not remove any present (statutory
or contractual) protection of shop workers. The Department also
repeated their view that it would not be in the interests of shops
to change their hours at short notice because of the need to give
consumers sufficient advance notice and the need to ensure that
adequate staff were available.

Proposal 2

10. This is dealt with in paragraph 37 of the
Statement. The Department takes the view that the provision prohibiting
the sale of methylated spirits from 10pm on Saturdays to 8am on
Mondays is "obsolete" following the passage of the 1994
Sunday Trading Act and that it affords no necessary protection.

11. The Committee accepts that neither proposal
would involve a loss of necessary protection.

REASONABLE
EXPECTATION

Proposal 1

12. The Department, at paragraphs 38 and 39 of
the Statement, suggests that although the proposal takes away
the right of the public to inspect the notification register,
since that right is rarely or ever exercised, the proposal would
not conflict with any reasonable expectation to continue to exercise
a right or freedom.

Proposal 2

13. The Department, at paragraph 40 of the Statement,
suggests that the second proposal similarly would not conflict
with any reasonable expectation to continue to exercise a right
or freedom; indeed, it would increase the freedom to buy and sell
methylated spirits.

14. The Committee accepts that neither proposal
would interfere with any reasonable expectation to continue to
exercise a right or freedom.

CONSULTATION

15. The consultation is described in paragraphs
46 to 53 of, and summarised in Annex B to, the Statement and the
list of those consulted is in Annex A to the Statement. The consultation
took place between 18 March and 27 June 2003, thereby satisfying
the 12 weeks recommended by the Cabinet Office. (We note the second
proposal was also the subject of a consultation exercise undertaken
by the Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in October 2000.)

16. Responses received after the closing date
were also taken into account. A range of organisations made submissions,
including representatives from retailers, businesses, business
associations, local government, professional organisations and
individuals. Almost all consultees who commented on the first
proposal supported it; all consultees who commented on the second
proposal supported it. The Committee is satisfied that the consultation
was adequate.

CONCLUSION

17. The Committee concludes that the proposal
is an appropriate use of the 2001 Act and meets its requirements.